(25-06-2016 03:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote: If one thing has become apparent, it's that for the atheists here nothing is reliable. Josephus is to be distrusted, Tacitus is to be distrusted, the first hand account of Paul is to be distrusted.

Atheists here point to Philo not mentioning Jesus, yet if Philo did mention Jesus they would just claim he's not to be trusted, that he wasn't there to witness any of it. That he relied on hearsay. Because that's the pattern here.

It's the pattern of thought borrowed from the birthers and creationist. You provide a birth certificate, and they go about the unreliability of short form birth certificates.

What all this discussion confirms for me, is my suspicion, that there's something psychological as opposed to rational about atheists and their belief that Jesus did not exist. That's it driven more out of a desire for Jesus to not exist, than reason. It's seem there's something bothersome to them about Jesus existing, though I'm not entirely sure why that is.

No, we (or at least those that agree with me and me) are simply skeptical of his existence and the sources that are usually brought in support of it. Why is it wrong for people to be skeptical about sources? If it has to be done, it needs to be done right. If the sources you bring are solid, no amount of skepticism would do anything.

And honestly, I think you should be "strict" about it the same way we are, don't you want to be sure of it, to have solid evidence of his existence? If you're afraid of testing the sources seriously, maybe you're not that convinced that they're actually solid.

But I have to say this: even if his existence were to be proved, it would only mean that a man named "Jesus" was teaching in Palestine many centuries ago, but it wouldn't say anything about his supposed divine nature or supernatural abilities. You'd have to prove each of those claims separately.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.

The following 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post:2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's postSitaSky (25-06-2016), Deesse23 (25-06-2016)

(25-06-2016 03:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote: No Philo's writing do not place him in Jerusalem at that time. But apparently that doesn't stop you from repeating this lie.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have two finals due today, but allow me to drag you about for a bit:

Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.

"Philo says nothing of his own religious practices, except that he made a festival pilgrimage to Jerusalem.."

"It amounts to this. It has been worked over by a clumsy hand which has destroyed the interlocutory setting, and torn the thoughts away from their essential order; it includes two large Christian interpolations, but otherwise is genuinely Philonic. The second book, which is twice the length, has no such difficulties. The dialogue is clearly maintained throughout. There is nothing which suggests interpolation and the parallelism both of thought and language, at any rate in the part of which the original is preserved by Eusebius, gives overwhelming evidence of its genuineness. This is particularly true of the first part of the second fragment. It is very remarkable therefore that it is more devoid of traces of Judaism than even the Quod Omn. Prob. and the De Aet. There are no allusions to the O.T., and no mention of Moses; the one and only fact which suggests that the writer is a Jew is the personal allusion to his visit to Jerusalem via Ascalon (§ 64).

Very little is known about the life of Philo. He lived in Alexandria, which at that time counted, according to some estimates, about one million people and included largest Jewish community outside of Palestine. He came from a wealthy and the prominent family and appears to be a leader in his community. Once he visited Jerusalem and the temple, as he himself stated in Prov. 2.64.

(25-06-2016 08:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: We're STILL waiting to have this "plethora" to be detailed and enumerated, and how we know each one is reliable.

I suspect we will wait forever.

If one thing has become apparent, it's that for the atheists here nothing is reliable. Josephus is to be distrusted, Tacitus is to be distrusted, the first hand account of Paul is to be distrusted.

Atheists here point to Philo not mentioning Jesus, yet if Philo did mention Jesus they would just claim he's not to be trusted, that he wasn't there to witness any of it. That he relied on hearsay. Because that's the pattern here.

It's the pattern of thought borrowed from the birthers and creationist. You provide a birth certificate, and they go about the unreliability of short form birth certificates.

What all this discussion confirms for me, is my suspicion, that there's something psychological as opposed to rational about atheists and their belief that Jesus did not exist. That's it driven more out of a desire for Jesus to not exist, than reason. It's seem there's something bothersome to them about Jesus existing, though I'm not entirely sure why that is.

(25-06-2016 04:05 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote: I have two finals due today, but allow me to drag you about for a bit:

Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.

"Philo says nothing of his own religious practices, except that he made a festival pilgrimage to Jerusalem.."

"It amounts to this. It has been worked over by a clumsy hand which has destroyed the interlocutory setting, and torn the thoughts away from their essential order; it includes two large Christian interpolations, but otherwise is genuinely Philonic. The second book, which is twice the length, has no such difficulties. The dialogue is clearly maintained throughout. There is nothing which suggests interpolation and the parallelism both of thought and language, at any rate in the part of which the original is preserved by Eusebius, gives overwhelming evidence of its genuineness. This is particularly true of the first part of the second fragment. It is very remarkable therefore that it is more devoid of traces of Judaism than even the Quod Omn. Prob. and the De Aet. There are no allusions to the O.T., and no mention of Moses; the one and only fact which suggests that the writer is a Jew is the personal allusion to his visit to Jerusalem via Ascalon (§ 64).

Very little is known about the life of Philo. He lived in Alexandria, which at that time counted, according to some estimates, about one million people and included largest Jewish community outside of Palestine. He came from a wealthy and the prominent family and appears to be a leader in his community. Once he visited Jerusalem and the temple, as he himself stated in Prov. 2.64.

go read the links I so helpfully provided you. Notice they are scholarly pages, not some blog article. Meanwhile back to pwning college like I continually pwn you.

Screenshot

You have 3 A-.

I know

If I ace the final exam, which I normally do, I will end up with a 96 which is a course grade of A, as usual hehe

I blame the 55-60 hour a week new job, new house with list of things I want to do to it, a tiny bit of academic burnout (4th degree in a row straight thru) and a course where the instructor is uber anal about APA formatting

Thank goodness for ADHD and Adderall

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)

You claimed that Philo was in Jerusalem about 6 years after the death of Jesus.

He mentions visiting Jerusalem just once in his writing, but not during the period you claim.

You also appealed to his embassy to Gaius, which doesn't place him anywhere near Jerusalem.

When you claim that Philo was in Jerusalem a few years after Jesus's death, you are lying. Philo's writing to don't support this anywhere. And you failed at every turn to support this yourself.

Bucky made a similar false claim but at least he was man enough to to admit his mistake after being called out on it, while you seem to lack some basic accountability.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

*pats child on head*

go read the links I so helpfully provided you. Notice they are scholarly pages, not some blog article. Meanwhile back to pwning college like I continually pwn you.

Screenshot

I read Philo, and it's only Philo that's relevant here. You claimed he was in Jerusalem 6 years after Jesus death. Philo makes no such claim, nothing in his writing is supportive of you claim that he was in Jerusalem at this time

So when you claim this, you are lying. Call it lying for atheism. I would have dismissed it as a careless mistake on your part, but your lack of ownership begs otherwise. At this point it's is not a matter of you being too busy, it's just matter of you being dishonest. Perhaps you know at this point you were wrong in making this claim, but don't want to lose face here by admitting that, to someone you referred to as ignorant on the subject.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

go read the links I so helpfully provided you. Notice they are scholarly pages, not some blog article. Meanwhile back to pwning college like I continually pwn you.

Screenshot

I read Philo, and it's only Philo that's relevant here. You claimed he was in Jerusalem 6 years after Jesus death. Philo makes no such claim, nothing in his writing is supportive of you claim that he was in Jerusalem at this time

So when you claim this, you are lying. Call it lying for atheism. I would have dismissed it as a careless mistake on your part, but your lack of ownership begs otherwise. At this point it's is not a matter of you being too busy, it's just matter of you being dishonest. Perhaps you know at this point you were wrong in making this claim, but don't want to lose face here by admitting that, to someone you referred to as ignorant on the subject.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well my good ineducable buddy, since that information was derived from multiple scholarly sources, and multiple people with PHDs in philosophy and theology assert that little factoid, I will take that collective wisdom over your opinion any day. Let's agree to disagree shall we pumpkin? Good.

Now back to our regularly scheduled ass beating.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)

(25-06-2016 05:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote: I read Philo, and it's only Philo that's relevant here. You claimed he was in Jerusalem 6 years after Jesus death. Philo makes no such claim, nothing in his writing is supportive of you claim that he was in Jerusalem at this time

So when you claim this, you are lying. Call it lying for atheism. I would have dismissed it as a careless mistake on your part, but your lack of ownership begs otherwise. At this point it's is not a matter of you being too busy, it's just matter of you being dishonest. Perhaps you know at this point you were wrong in making this claim, but don't want to lose face here by admitting that, to someone you referred to as ignorant on the subject.

There is a guy being worshiped right now who died 100 years ago, he came back to life and ascended to a paradise realm that can only be accessed after death. If you love him and worship him you can go to paradise after you die too! I can't prove this to you since there are no first hand accounts of this man even existing much less possessing magical powers but these people who worship him swear he was real. They even have some writings by a guy who knew his brother but there are no accounts of his brothers ever existing either. Do you believe me?

I know what you're thinking, this story sure sounds familiar, just like Jesus but no this really happened, the people who worship him have many tales written about him and even though it seems copied from other stories this one is actually true. You believe me right? I mean it was only 100 years ago, clearly people just forgot to talk about it until now.